Incorrect.
A punch to the face counts as deadly force, here.
Breaking a femur is potentially fatal.

Well that's all well and good, but I'd like to see a case where this is considered reasonable to cause death or serious harm if you don't mind; unless we're counting a broken cheekbone or tooth to be serious harm, which are usually considered less than serious harm in the UK.

The point is valid. Hitting people in a decidedly non-lethal place has the potential to incapacitate. This is an option not available to a knife. I made no reference to this being reliable. Try again.

Quote:

Now you're waffling.
I clearly gave the local law caveat.
If you'd like to quote a law resource that supports your assertion, i'd appreciate it.

It's not legal, it's logic. If it's not reasonable for the action to cause serious harm or death, then it falls below the requirements for deadly force. I'm not in the US so I'm willing to accept that the courts may see it differently; hence 'arguably' instead of a statement of certainty. However, waffling it is not.

Quote:

I disagree wholeheartedly.
I could brandish the knife.
Further, the pain of the bat won't necessarily stop someone.
That said a broken skull can kill you, as can many blunt force traumas.
That is why it is lumped in with deadly force.

Where did I say a broken skull can't kill you?

It's irrelevant whether or not the pain of a bat could reliably stop someone, stop moving goalposts. The only question is one of whether a bat allows for 'safer' self-defence on the basis of resulting injury and legal ramifications.

Quote:

You are splitting hairs between two really poor responses, and are using poor logic that does not extrapolate to US law to do so.
(IANAL, any attorneys who'd like to interject, please do.)
That was my point.

It's sound logic, the only thing missing here is legal citation from the relevant legal system. I haven't decisively commented on the legal system you're under, but without caselaw to support what you're saying your caveat simply suggests consideration on a case by case basis, and one with a high degree of room for interpretation by the judge.

1/02/2012 4:05pm,

judokarl

Like most of the people here I would shave to go with the bat. I am not much one for getting an accidental murder charge for stabbing someone in the wrong spot during a scuffle. The bat gives reach. Now that being said if I am alone in the house I will be more than happy to grab my cellphone and just climb out a window. No need for me to start a confrontation over just stuff. If a loved one was in the house with me I would just move furniture in the way of the door.

1/02/2012 4:56pm,

ChenPengFi

From a UK source:

Quote:

For a homeowner it is legal to stab a burglar and within the law MP Ken Clarke has confirmed that reasonable force can include weapons such as a knife cricket bat or baseball bat and they may be used in self defence of yourself and your family if you were confronted by a criminal in your own home, or if you are on the streets, you may be able to reasonably use a nearby item to defend yourself.

"It's quite obvious that people are entitled to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves and their homes," Mr Clarke said.

"We will make it quite clear you can hit the burglar with the poker if he's in the house and you have a perfect defence when you do so”

Asked about what this would mean in practice, he said: "If an old lady finds she's got an 18 year old burgling her house and she picks up a kitchen knife and sticks it in him she has not committed a criminal offence and we will make that clear."

In accordance with the recommendation in R v McCready (1978) 1 WLR 1376, if there is any reliable evidence that a sufficiently serious wound has been inflicted, then the charge under section 20 should be of unlawful wounding, rather than of inflicting grievous bodily harm. Where both a wound and grievous bodily harm have been inflicted, discretion should be used in choosing which part of section 20 more appropriately reflects the true nature of the offence.

The prosecution must prove under section 20 that either the defendant intended, or actually foresaw, that the act might cause some harm. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant either intended or foresaw that the unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in section 20. It is enough that the defendant foresaw some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result: (R v Savage; DPP v Parmenter [1992] 1 A.C 699).

(my bold)

Note broken bones and psychiatric injury apply as well.
Further, as an unlawful act, this would not apply to self defense.
Know your local laws!

It appears your premise is incorrect, and you should note how all of those weapons are categorized together.

At no point did I say that a knife would automatically invalidate a self-defence argument. I have simply suggested that stabbing somebody carries a more serious offence than can be caused by hitting them with a bat. Try again.

As for the definitions of GBH you've posted, in practice a broken cheekbone usually comes under actual bodily harm, not grievous bodily harm, and psychological harm is very unlikely to stick.

Also, the S.20 you're referring to in the part you're quoting wouldn't be applicable to the S.18 offence which would be applicable to a knife wound if your self-defence argument failed. Your assumption that the action is automatically lawful because of the nature of you defending your house is heavily reliant on the jury accepting that your actions were proportionate to the reasonably perceived threat. It is this part which is more influenced by the type of weapon used and the resulting injury - ie. a knife wound is not a proportionate response to the threat of unarmed violence unless you are particularly vulnerable, such as the old lady in your earlier quote.

1/02/2012 6:15pm,

ChenPengFi

Wrong, in a home defense both are legal yet both are deadly force and both can cause GBH.
Legal hairsplitting confirmed.